Details
Central Asia is entering a period of accelerated climate and energy change. The region’s long dependence on fossil fuels — especially coal and gas — has produced severe air pollution, water stress, and social vulnerability. At the same time, global climate commitments require countries to reduce emissions and shift towards cleaner industries. This creates a central question for governments, donors, and communities: how to move away from fossil fuels without deepening inequality or harming those who rely on carbon-intensive jobs?
Over the past few years, the term “Just Transition” (JT) has entered regional policy debates. The number of publications using the term has grown rapidly on Central Asian climate platforms, and countries are beginning to reference JT in their updated climate commitments, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 3.0). Yet the meaning of the term remains unclear, contested, and it is largely understood as a concept that has been introduced from outside Central Asia . Many civil-society actors interviewed for this study admitted that they first heard of it through international organizations, not in national debates. As one respondent put it: “You only hear this at conferences — people don’t really understand what it means.”
This research examines how governments, UN agencies, and civil-society actors across Central Asia interpret Just Transition, and what these groups believe is needed for a fair shift to low-carbon futures.
Government and UN Perspectives: Transition as Planning and Modernization
Agencies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) emphasize restructuring of energy systems, workforce retraining, and economic diversification. The governments of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan present JT as part of long-term economic modernization, while the government of the Kyrgyz Republic highlights social equity and public communication.
Across these narratives, three themes stand out:
- JT is described as a technical process requiring economic modelling, sectoral planning, and new investment.
- Governments acknowledge that coal phase-outs will affect employment but treat social support as an administrative issue rather than a political one.
- Although official documents refer to inclusivity, there are few institutional channels for meaningful public involvement.
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan now include definitions of Just Transition in their NDC 3.0 documents. Despite these efforts, implementation remains weak. None of these countries has a comprehensive JT strategy, and most plans focus on technical changes rather than questions of power, social rights, or local involvement.
Civil-Society Perspectives: Justice as Protection, the Right to Speak, and Dignity
Civil-society actors — NGOs, journalists, trade unions, community leaders — interpret Just Transition very differently. For them, “justice” is not an abstract policy category but a matter of daily survival, participation, and rights.
From the interviews, three main narratives emerge:
1. Social Protection and Livelihoods
Communities in coal-dependent regions fear job loss, rising energy prices, and the absence of alternative employment. Respondents insist that no transition can be “just” without:
- income guarantees,
- retraining opportunities,
- support for older workers, and
- protection for families in mono-industrial towns.
2. Procedural Fairness and Dialogue
For civil actors, justice also means being included in decisions. They argue that transitions cannot be designed solely by ministries and donors. Trade unions call for embedding JT clauses into national tripartite agreements.
Interviewees repeatedly pointed to the lack of public discussion, fear of political reprisals, and shrinking civic space. Even environmental topics — once considered “safe” — are now politically sensitive.
3. Ethical and Cultural Transformation
Several respondents had a broader understanding of JT that went beyond jobs and compensation. Some raised ethical concerns about global supply chains, while others proposed creative approaches to transition, such as reusing industrial spaces for culture, research, or innovation. This reflects a desire not only to avoid losing something, but also to imagine new regional identities.
Interviewees also stressed the need for community skills, education, and local media. Justice, in this view, includes the right to know and the right to speak.
Information Gaps, Language Barriers, and the Fear of Speaking
Across interviews, one theme was especially strong: informational inequality.
While international actors use JT fluently, the term barely exists in everyday conversation. Many people working in energy, media, or community organizations have not previously encountered it, or first heard it only recently.
Local-language materials are scarce. Climate discussions often happen in English or Russian, excluding large parts of the local populations. At the same time, fear limits public debate. Activists described widespread self-censorship. NGOs and journalists often cannot voice concerns about infrastructure projects, deforestation, or pollution because these issues have become politically sensitive.
This combination — lack of information and lack of safety — dramatically restricts the possibility of a genuinely just transition.
The study reveals a clear gap between:
- UN/government narratives, which treat transition as economic modernization, and
- civil-society narratives, which emphasise fairness, agency, and survival.
While official actors speak of coordinated planning, civil actors speak of being heard. While governments discuss competitiveness, communities discuss livelihoods and rights.
This divergence risks undermining social legitimacy. Without trust, participation, and communication, transition policies may reproduce the very inequalities they seek to address.
Just Transition as a Social Contract
Just Transition in Central Asia remains an evolving concept. It is widely discussed in international forums but only now beginning to take shape domestically. Civil-society narratives show that justice is not a technical add-on but a core expectation:
security for workers, fair participation, dignity in decision-making, and respect for cultural identities.
These findings suggest that JT in the region must be understood not as a pre-designed model imported from outside but as a social contract emerging from dialogue between governments, communities, and international partners. For this contract to be legitimate, it must grow from below — through public debate, protection of civic space, and attention to local meanings of justice.
